Exploring Local Areas, Skills and Unemployment

Exploring Local Areas, Skills and Unemployment Exploratory Data Analysis at Local Area Level Anne E. Green David Owen Anne E. Green Institute for Employment Research University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL Tel: 024 76524113 Fax: 024 76524241 E-mail: A.E.Green@warwick.ac.uk November 2002

CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures Executive Summary Page ii ii v 1. Introduction - context and scope of the report 1 2. Spatial variations in the incidence of vacancies at the local area scale 5 3. The relationship between skill-shortage /hard-to-fill vacancies and unemployment/ non-employment at local level 18 4. A classification of LLSC areas and suggestions for possible areas for qualitative case studies 36 5. Descriptive statistics on reasons for vacancies and types of vacancies at local level 44 6. Conclusions and key issues 69 Appendix 1: Checking and cleaning the ESS2001 data file for geographical analyses Appendix 2: Analysis of unemployment/non-employment:vacancy relationships by broad region Appendix 3: Industrial distribution of vacancies Appendix 4: Maps I II IV VI i

List of Tables Page 1. Number of vacancies by LLSC area and region 7 2. Percentage of establishments reporting vacancies by LLSC area and region 8 3. Rankings of LLSC areas on percentage of establishments reporting vacancies 10 4. Vacancies as a percentage of employment by LLSC area and region 13 5. Rankings of LLSC areas on vacancies as a percentage of employment 15 6. Rankings of TTWAs on percentage of establishments reporting vacancies 16 7. Rankings of TTWAs on vacancies as a percentage of employment 16 8. Vacancy indicators by UALAD families and groups 17 9. Rankings of LLSC areas on unemployment and non-employment indicators 19 10. Values on vacancy measures by unemployment rate categories 20 11. Classification of LLSC areas on the basis of the relationship between vacancy and unemployment / non-employment rate characteristics 38 12. LLSC areas with greater than England average values on vacancy and unemployment / non-employment rate indicators 40 13. Establishments with vacancies, hard-to-fill vacancies and skill-shortage vacancies by LLSC area 43 14. Reasons for hard-to-fill vacancies and skill-shortage vacancies in low, medium and high unemployment rate areas 45 15. Occupational groupings 46 16. Occupational profile (%) of vacancies by LLSC area and region 47 17. Ratio of occupational vacancy structure to occupational employment structure by LLSC area 49 18. Occupational profile (%) of vacancies in low, medium and high unemployment rate areas 52 19. Occupational profile (%) of vacancies by UALAD families 52 20. Industrial profile (%) of hard-to-fill vacancies by LLSC area and region 55 21. Industrial profile (%) of skill-shortage vacancies by LLSC area and region 57 22 Density of hard-to-fill vacancies by broad industry by LLSC area and region 59 23 Density of skill-shortage vacancies by broad industry by LLSC area and region 61 24. Establishment size profile (%) of vacancies by LLSC area and region 63 25. Percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies by size band by LLSC area and region 65 26. Density of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies by size band by LLSC area and region 67 List of Figures Page 1. Intra-regional variations in the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas 9 2. Intra-regional variations in the percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas 9 3. Percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas VI 4. Percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas VII 5. Intra-regional variations in the density of skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas 14 6. Intra-regional variations in the density of hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas 14 7. Density of skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas VIII 8. Density of hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas IX 9. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 25 10. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies and the longer-term claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 25 ii

11. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies and the ILO unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 26 12. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies and the non-employment rate for persons of working age, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 26 13. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 27 14. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies and the longer-term claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 27 15 Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies and the ILO unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 28 16. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies and the non-employment rate for persons of working age, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 28 17 Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 29 18. Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the longer-term claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 29 19. Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the ILO unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 30 20. Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the non-employment rate for persons of working age, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 30 21 Relationship between the density of hard-to-fill vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 31 22. Relationship between the density of hard-to-fill vacancies and the longer-term claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 31 23. Relationship between the density of hard-to-fill vacancies and the ILO unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 32 24. Relationship between the density of hard-to-fill vacancies and the non-employment rate for persons of working age, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas 32 25. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: TTWAs 33 26. Relationship between the percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: TTWAs 33 27. Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: TTWAs 34 28. Relationship between the density of hard-to-fill vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: TTWAs 34 29. Relationship between the density of hard-to-fill vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: UALADs 35 30. Initial categorisations of LLSC areas into groups A-D 37 31. Classification of LLSC areas groups A-D X Appendices A2.1 Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas by broad region A2.2 Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the longer-term claimant unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas by broad region A2.3 Relationship between density of skill-shortage vacancies and the ILO unemployment rate, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas by broad region A2.4 Relationship between the density of skill-shortage vacancies and the non-employment rate for persons of working age, March 2000-February 2001: LLSC areas by broad region II II III III iii

A3.1 Industrial profile of total, hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies England IV A3.2 Density of total, hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies by industry England V The colour-shaded maps have been removed from the main body of the report and placed in an appendix for printing purposes. Fig 3 Percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas VI Fig 4 Percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas VII Fig 7 Density of skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas VIII Fig 8 Density of hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas IX Fig 31 Classification of LLSC areas groups A-D X iv

Executive summary The National Skills Task Force acknowledged that a national skills strategy needs an explicit and coherent spatial component with local action tied to local needs. The establishment of the local Learning and Skills Councils and Learning Partnerships provides further impetus for developing knowledge of skill requirements at a subregional level. Initial spatial analysis was undertaken using the 1999 Employer Skills Survey (ESS1999). This showed a broad North-South divide in both hard-to-fill and skillshortage vacancies (in the external labour market) and skill gaps (experienced by firms). However, the situation was more complex than this, as within most regions areas with higher than average levels of skill deficiency and areas with lower than average levels of skill deficiency were identified. The initial work found generally a negative relationship between the incidence of skill-shortage vacancies and local unemployment rates. This relationship was statistically weak and areas were found where high unemployment rates co-existed with a high number of skill-shortage vacancies. The exploratory analyses presented here represent the first stage in further exploration of the relationship between hard-to-fill and skills-shortage vacancies on the one hand, and unemployment on the other, using data from the 2001 Employer Skills Survey (ESS2001). They are complemented by: multivariate econometric analysis at the level of individual establishments; and in-depth case studies in areas where relatively high levels of hard-to-fill and skillshortage vacancies co-exist with higher than average unemployment rates. A North-South divide Analysis of ESS2001 data reveals some evidence for the North-South divide in both hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies. The Eastern region, the South East, London and the South West all record an incidence of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies in excess of the England average. Yorkshire & the Humber, the North East, the North West and the East Midlands record a lower than national average incidence of such vacancies. However, a broad regional perspective disguises the variation that is apparent within regions. Intra-regional differences Within most regions there are marked local variations in the incidence of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies. In the Eastern region local areas in the western part of the region display a higher incidence of such vacancies than those further east. In the South East region skill deficiencies are particularly acute in an arc of local areas to the north, west and south of London, but are less pronounced in Kent/Medway. Only in Yorkshire & the Humber and the North East do all local Learning and Skills Council areas record a lower than average incidence of vacancies. Gloucestershire, Wiltshire/Swindon, Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Berkshire, Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire/Milton Keynes, East Sussex/West Sussex/Brighton & Hove and London Central display a higher than average incidence of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies on all measures used in the v

analyses. Other local areas display higher than average values on most of the measures used. Analysis based on a grouping of local districts into areas with similar socio-economic and demographic profiles reveals that Inner London and Prosperous England have the highest incidence of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies. However, skill deficiencies are not confined to these areas, with Remoter rural areas facing particular problems of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies. The Coalfields display the lowest incidence of such vacancies. Skill deficiencies and unemployment Examination of local variations in hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies alongside unemployment and non-employment rate measures reveals (in most instances) a negative relationship i.e. in general, low unemployment rate areas tend to have a higher average incidence of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies than high unemployment rate areas, and vice versa. However, in statistical terms, the relationships are either weak or not significant. In general, the relationships involving hard-to-fill vacancies are stronger than those involving skill-shortage vacancies, and are weaker than those observed with ESS1999 data (at a time when the overall level of skill deficiencies was higher than in 2001). The weakness of the relationship implies considerable variation in the relationship between unemployment and vacancies at the local level. The report presents a typology of LLSC areas on the basis of observed relationships between unemployment and vacancy levels at local level. The typology shows a relatively high incidence of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies co-existing alongside relatively high unemployment levels in some metropolitan areas such as London Central and London East. Cumbria, Lancashire, Birmingham/Solihull and Devon/Cornwall also share similar characteristics, but to a less marked extent. (From this group, London East, Birmingham/Solihull and Lancashire were selected for more detailed case study analysis in order to provide further insight into the paradox of high unemployment co-existing alongside a higher than average incidence of vacancies.) Many local areas in southern England are characterised by higher than average vacancy levels but lower than average unemployment, while many northern urban areas are characterised by lower than average vacancy levels alongside higher than average unemployment. Further descriptive analyses Information is presented on the reasons for hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies, with a low number of applicants with skills identified as the single most important reason across high, medium and low unemployment rate areas. Lack of work experience emerges as a more important reason for hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies in high unemployment rate areas than in medium or low unemployment rate areas. There are marked local variations in the profile and incidence of hard-to-fill and skillshortage vacancies by occupation, industry and establishment size. (The influence of these dimensions of variation in understanding the incidence of skill deficiencies is explored in more detail using multivariate econometric techniques in another part of the project.) vi

1. Introduction context and scope of the report The issue of skills has risen up policy agendas at national, regional and local levels in recent years. A range of evidence has been presented at the sub-national level demonstrating that there are substantial variations in skill levels between local areas. 1 At the neighbourhood level, the Social Exclusion Unit and Policy Action Teams have focused on ways of narrowing the gap between the poorest localities and the rest, so that low skill localities are not excluded from an emergent high skill society. 2 A Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report on workforce development 3 suggests that while social exclusion is the result of a range of factors, poor skill levels have a major influence. Hence, skills policy is expected to contribute to a greater participation in the labour market of those who are currently excluded. The existence of spatial variations in skill levels could restrict the development of a national skills agenda. Without action to tackle problems of low skills localities and associated variations in economic performance, the development and potential of localities themselves, and thus the economic and social opportunities of people who live in them, will be restricted and national progress will be obstructed. The National Skills Task Force has acknowledged that a national skills strategy requires an explicit and coherent spatial component with local action tied to local needs. Hence, a spatial skills strategy is regarded as a crucial component of a wider local and regional economic development strategy. 4 An initial exploration of contrasts in skill deficiencies between local areas in England was conducted using information from the 1999 Employers Skill Survey (ESS1999). 5 Using measures 6 of skill-shortage vacancies in the external labour market, this revealed evidence of a North-South divide. The majority of local areas with the highest incidence of skill-shortage vacancies were located south and east of a line drawn from the Severn to the Wash. Conversely, the majority of the local areas with the lowest incidence of skill-shortage vacancies and skill gaps were located in northern England and the Midlands. There were also local contrasts within regions 1 2 3 4 5 6 See Payne J. (1997) Routes at 16: Trends and Choices in the 1990s, DfEE Research Report RR55. Sheffield: DfEE; Payne J. (2000) Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training: Data from the England and Wales Youth Cohort Study, London: DfEE; Green A.E. (1999) Feasibility Study of Measuring the Local Distribution of Poor Skills, DfEE Research Report RR173, Nottingham: DfEE Publications; Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000) Index of Deprivation 2000, London: DETR; Campbell M. (2002) Learn to Succeed: The case for a skills revolution, Bristol: Policy Press. Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. London: HMSO; Social Exclusion Unit (2000) Policy Action Team Report Summaries: A Compendium. London: The Stationery Office; Department for Education and Employment (1999) Skills for Neighbourhood Renewal: Local solutions. Nottingham: DfEE. Performance and Innovation Unit (2001) In Demand: Adult skills in the 21 st century, London: Cabinet Office. Campbell M., Chapman R. and Hutchinson J. (1999) Spatial Skill Variations: Their Extent and Implications, Skills Task Force Research Paper 14. Nottingham: DfEE Publications. Green A.E. and Owen D.W. (2001) Skills, Local Areas and Unemployment. Nottingham: DfEE Publications. Two measures of skill-shortage vacancies / skill gaps were constructed: the percentage of establishments recording skill-shortage vacancies, and skill-shortage vacancies as a proportion of total employees (i.e. a density measure). 1

most notably, the greater preponderance of skill-shortage vacancies and skill gaps in the western part of south-eastern England than in the eastern part. The analyses based on ESS1999 data addressed the important policy question for skills development (and for local and regional economic development more generally): 'Is there a negative and invariant relationship between the reporting of skill deficiencies and unemployment?" (i.e. can the incidence of skill deficiencies be explained solely be the tightness of the local labour market, as measured by the unemployment rate?). The relationship between the incidence of skill deficiencies and the local unemployment rate was found to be negative and statistically significant (albeit relatively weakly so). This is indicative of a greater incidence of skill deficiencies where it is harder to recruit labour (as indicated by the unemployment rate), but the strength of the relationship reveals that the incidence of skill deficiencies cannot be explained solely by local labour market 'tightness'. As an aid to summarising the complexity of the spatial patterns emerging at local level, a typology of local areas was developed, distinguishing between areas on the basis of the incidence of skill deficiencies relative to the national average and their local unemployment rates. From a policy perspective there is a particular interest in those local areas where skill deficiencies are greater than expected given the unemployment rate. This could result from a situation of mismatch between the skills demanded by employers located in such local areas and the skills of potential workers in the local area. Evidence from London underlines high rates of in-commuting, with workers coming in from surrounding areas to fill the more highly skilled jobs located in the capital, 7 while the more poorly skilled residents suffer relatively high unemployment rates, despite the existence of relatively high numbers of vacancies. 8 Indeed, research on the relatively high level of unemployment in the London labour market in the 1990s has revealed that the proportion of London-based jobs requiring higher skills grew more rapidly than in other regions, while the supply of London residents with higher level qualifications grew more slowly than elsewhere. 9 In many large urban areas, particularly in the three northern-most regions in England, but also in the metropolitan West Midlands, ESS1999 revealed the prevalence of skill-shortage vacancies to be higher than expected (although lower than the average for England) given the higher than average unemployment rates which prevail. In such high unemployment areas there was a greater propensity for a lack of work experience to be offered as a reason for skill-shortage and hard-to-fill 7 8 9 Webster D. (2000) The geographical concentration of labour-market disadvantage, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 16, 114-128. Gordon I. (1999) Move on up the car: dealing with structural unemployment in London, Local Economy 14, 87-95; Fieldhouse E.A. (1999) Ethnic minority unemployment and spatial mismatch, Urban Studies 36, 1569-96; Green A.E. and Owen D.W. (2000) Estimating commuting flows for minority ethnic groups in England and Wales, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26, 581-608. Millward N., Metcalf H. and Forth J. (2001) London s unemployment in the 1990s: tests of demand-side explanations for its relative growth, London: NIESR. This study also showed that London workplaces increased their productivity more rapidly between 1990 and 1998 than workplaces elsewhere, so contributing to relatively higher unemployment in London. Analyses also found that non-employment rose with the percentage of population from ethnic minorities possibly as a result of discrimination; (an issue that can be explored through case studies undertaken for this Skills, Local Areas and Unemployment project). 2

vacancies than elsewhere; especially compared with low unemployment rate areas. This suggests that periods out of the labour market may be a particular problem in such areas, and indicates the importance of education and training initiatives being linked with work experience. Overall, the relative weakness of the relationship between the prevalence of skill deficiencies and the prevailing unemployment rate is likely, at least to some extent, to reflect the differential incidence of structural unemployment within local areas. 10 This report presents the results of exploratory data analysis of the 2001 Employers Skill Survey (ESS2001) data set at the sub-regional scale. As such, the analyses presented here extend those presented in a descriptive overview at national and regional scales. 11 The analyses presented here also provide the context for: econometric analysis of the ESS2001 data, which attempts to explain the relationship at the level of individual establishments between skills deficiencies and measures of local unemployment; a limited number of case studies concerned with exploring with employers in greater depth than the ESS2001 data allow how recruitment difficulties arise, and how job seekers might be better matched to available vacancies. 12 As in the previous analyses ESS1999 data, the main focus in this report is on the local Learning and Skills Council (LLSC) area level, although reference is also made to the Travel-to-Work Area (TTWA) and Unitary Authority/Local Authority District (UALAD) area scales. 13. There are two main reasons for focusing on the LLSC area level: from a policy perspective, LLSCs are responsible for funding and planning education and training for over 16-year-olds in England; from a technical perspective, LLSC areas are generally larger geographical units than either TTWAs and UALADs, and there are fewer LLSC areas in England (47 in total) than there are TTWAs and UALADs: this is advantageous given the fact that the ESS2001 survey used a quota sample methodology based on size band, industry sector and region with a final adjustment made to the regional element of the quota such that a target was set for a minimum of 400 interviews within each LLSC area, so as to permit separate analysis at LLSC area level. The analyses presented here build on work conducted using ESS1999 data. Details of the checking and cleaning of the ESS2001 data file for geographical analyses at 10 11 12 13 It is worthy of note that over time, demand-deficient unemployment can become translated into structural unemployment, and so persist when and where conditions for the original demand-deficiency no longer exist. Hogarth T., Shury J., Vivian D., and Wilson R. (2001) Employers Skill Survey 2001: Statistical Report. Nottingham: DfES Publications. The analyses presented here are intended to inform the selection of case study areas. LLSC areas and UALADs are both standard administrative areas. In general, UALADs nest into LLSC areas. By contrast, TTWAs are functionally-defined standard labour market areas i.e. they are relatively self-contained in terms of aggregate commuting flows. From a strict theoretical perspective, TTWAs are better-suited for labour market analysis purposes than UALADs or LLSC areas because they are functionally defined. However, analysis of commuting data shows that those people in the types of jobs that the unemployed would be most likely to enter have shorter than average commuting journeys. In metropolitan areas, TTWAs tend to be larger than UALADs and LLSC areas, whereas in more rural areas there may be several TTWAs subsumed within a LLSC area. 3

the local area level are outlined in Appendix 1. The main body of the report focuses on: a) an overview of sub-regional spatial variation in the incidence of vacancies (see section 2); b) the relationship between vacancies and indicators of unemployment and nonemployment (see section 3); c) a classification of LLSC areas on the basis of the relationships outlined in section 3 and suggestions for possible areas for qualitative case studies (see section 4); d) descriptive summaries of the reasons for vacancies and of types of vacancies (by occupation, by industry, occupation and by establishment size) at local level (see section 5); e) conclusions and key issues arising (see section 6). 4

2. Spatial variations in the incidence of vacancies at the local area scale Table 1 shows the absolute number of: total vacancies hard-to-fill vacancies skill-shortage vacancies by LLSC area. Table 2 shows the percentage of establishments reporting vacancies by LLSC area and region. Across England as a whole, 14.5 per cent of establishments reported vacancies of any kind, 7.5 per cent reported hard-to-fill vacancies and 3.7 per cent reported skill shortage vacancies. At the regional scale, there is some evidence for a North-South divide in the incidence of vacancies, with the four southern-most regions of England the Eastern region, the South East, London and the South West recording an incidence of total, hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies in excess of the England average. In the West Midlands a greater than national average percentage of establishments reported vacancies of any type and hard-to-fill vacancies, but the proportion reporting skill-shortage vacancies was slightly lower than the England average. In the North East, North West, East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber the incidence of all types of vacancies was lower than the England average. Yorkshire & the Humber recorded a smaller percentage of vacancies than any other region. At the intra-regional scale, local variations in the incidence of vacancies are apparent, as shown in the box and whisker plots for Figures 1 and 2 for skillshortage and hard-to-fill vacancies, respectively. (A box and whisker plot provides information about the shape and dispersion of a distribution. As illustrated below, the box comprises the middle 50 per cent of observations: the lower end of the box represents the lower quartile and the upper end of the box represents the upper quartile. The line in the middle of the box represents the median. The lines outside the box extend downwards to the lowest value in the distribution, and upwards to the highest value in the distribution excluding outliers [which are indicated separately]). For example: Maximum value Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Minimum value 5

In the Eastern region, which displays a greater than average percentage of establishments reporting vacancies, Norfolk and Suffolk have smaller than average percentages of establishments with total, hard-to-fill and skillshortage vacancies than the national average. Essex and Suffolk record the lowest percentages of establishments with hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies, so underlining the east-west division within the region, with a lower incidence of vacancies in the east than in the west, where Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire display higher than average percentages of establishments with vacancies. In the South East, Kent/Medway and Hampshire/Isle of Wight/Portsmouth/Southampton LLSC areas display lower than average percentages of establishments with vacancies, while in Surrey, Berkshire, Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes and East Sussex/West Sussex/Brighton & Hove the incidence of establishments with vacancies exceeds the local and national average. In the South West the Somerset LLSC area records considerably fewer establishments with vacancies than the national average, despite the fact that across the region as a whole the incidence of establishments with vacancies exceeds the national average. The Wiltshire/Swindon LLSC area displays the highest proportion of establishments with vacancies in the region. In the West Midlands Birmingham/Solihull and Staffordshire display higher than average percentages of establishments with vacancies. In Yorkshire & the Humber there are no LLSC areas displaying a higher than average percentage of establishments with hard-to-fill or skill-shortage vacancies. In the East Midlands only Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire LLSC areas have greater than average percentages of establishments with skill-shortage vacancies. In the North East only County Durham and Tyne & Wear display percentages of establishments with hard-to-fill or skill-shortage vacancies close to, or above, the national average. In the North West Lancashire and Cumbria and Merseyside/Halton record percentages of establishments with hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies in excess of the England average, while in Merseyside/Halton and Greater Manchester the percentage of establishments with skill-shortage vacancies is similar to the England average. Table 3 ranks LLSC areas in descending order on the percentage of establishments reporting vacancies, while Figures 3 and 4 (see Appendix 4) show the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies and hard-to-fill vacancies, respectively, by quintile. The maps (see Appendix 4) show that LLSC areas in southern England tend to display higher percentages of establishments reporting hard-to-fill and skillshortage vacancies, but the regional pattern is by no means clear cut. The percentage of establishments reporting vacancies of any kind ranged from 34 per cent in Wiltshire/Swindon and Birmingham/Solihull to only 7 per cent in Derbyshire, Humberside and Somerset LLSC areas. 6

Table 1: Number of vacancies by LLSC area and region (weighted data) Code Area Total Hard-to-fill Skill-shortage North West 76164 34055 16676 1 Cumbria 7176 5127 3686 2 Merseyside/Halton 17366 4489 1893 3 Lancashire 12340 6568 4371 4 Cheshire/Warrington 16891 7996 1015 5 Greater Manchester 22390 9876 5711 North East 21776 8533 4123 10 Tyne and Wear 10653 3969 2277 11 County Durham 4293 1678 550 12 Tees Valley 4510 1956 946 13 Northumberland 2319 930 350 West Midlands 69549 31619 14048 20 Birmingham/Solihull 21098 7940 3170 21 Staffordshire 10190 5433 4303 22 Shropshire 6532 3153 1152 23 Herefordshire/Worcestershire 9528 5995 1763 24 The Black Country 10601 4119 1785 25 Coventry/Warwickshire 11601 4979 1875 Yorkshire and The Humber 46627 18555 7189 30 North Yorkshire 7048 3175 1511 31 South Yorkshire 14151 4912 1086 32 West Yorkshire 17737 7355 2541 33 Humberside 7691 3114 2050 East Midlands 48394 16845 6956 40 Lincolnshire/Rutland 9728 3437 514 41 Northamptonshire 8160 3149 894 42 Leicestershire 8260 2982 1556 43 Derbyshire 7671 3150 1428 44 Nottinghamshire 14575 4127 2564 Eastern 95905 46771 23945 50 Bedfordshire 12142 4611 2194 51 Essex 25330 9320 3740 52 Cambridgeshire 13555 8398 3086 53 Hertfordshire 28213 16532 12232 54 Norfolk 10664 4965 1989 55 Suffolk 6002 2945 703 London 183184 78274 35304 60 London Central 66705 38468 16939 61 London North 21785 6586 2380 62 London East 56901 15526 10210 63 London West 20614 9127 3194 64 London South 17179 8567 2582 South East 153308 83074 32142 70 Surrey 30789 16348 5651 71 East Sussex/West Sussex/Brighton & Hove 25524 12307 7063 72 Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 23896 15062 3661 73 Kent/Medway 17055 7849 2512 74 Hamps/Isle of Wight/Portsm'th/S'thampton 37575 21025 10218 75 Berkshire 18468 10483 3036 South West 74023 38216 17674 80 Devon/Cornwall 14498 6921 1987 81 Somerset 10534 4305 1298 82 Gloucestershire 15330 8958 5940 83 Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole 10206 6748 3642 84 Wiltshire/Swindon 14124 7549 4118 85 Former Avon 9332 3736 688 ENGLAND 768929 355943 158056 7

Table 2: Percentage of establishments reporting vacancies by LLSC area and region (weighted data) Code Area Total Hard-to-fill (HtF) Skill-shortage (S-S) North West 12.0 6.6 3.6 1 Cumbria 11.4 9.3 7.9 2 Merseyside/Halton 15.5 5.6 3.8 3 Lancashire 18.3 9.2 5.8 4 Cheshire/Warrington 9.6 5.4 0.4 5 Greater Manchester 11.6 6.2 3.7 North East 12.1 6.1 3.1 10 Tyne and Wear 12.5 6.7 3.9 11 County Durham 15.8 8.5 3.7 12 Tees Valley 9.8 4.1 1.6 13 Northumberland 10.0 4.1 1.6 West Midlands 15.9 8.9 3.4 20 Birmingham/Solihull 33.8 17.2 6.3 21 Staffordshire 16.1 8.2 6.3 22 Shropshire 9.8 6.2 1.9 23 Herefordshire/Worcestershire 12.8 9.3 2.1 24 The Black Country 13.8 7.3 2.4 25 Coventry/Warwickshire 12.3 5.5 2.3 Yorkshire and The Humber 10.1 4.4 2.2 30 North Yorkshire 8.8 5.0 3.3 31 South Yorkshire 15.5 5.1 1.7 32 West Yorkshire 11.1 4.6 1.6 33 Humberside 7.3 3.4 2.5 East Midlands 13.3 4.8 2.2 40 Lincolnshire/Rutland 8.9 4.5 0.6 41 Northamptonshire 21.0 6.5 2.6 42 Leicestershire 14.5 7.1 4.3 43 Derbyshire 6.8 3.1 1.2 44 Nottinghamshire 22.1 5.5 3.8 Eastern 17.3 8.2 4.8 50 Bedfordshire 22.8 8.0 4.9 51 Essex 17.4 5.6 2.0 52 Cambridgeshire 13.9 9.2 3.5 53 Hertfordshire 19.8 10.9 8.7 54 Norfolk 9.9 6.9 2.4 55 Suffolk 11.6 5.8 2.1 London 15.9 8.2 4.4 60 London Central 18.1 9.9 6.1 61 London North 14.7 4.8 1.2 62 London East 18.5 10.5 7.3 63 London West 12.8 6.9 2.0 64 London South 10.4 5.3 1.8 South East 15.2 9.0 3.8 70 Surrey 29.9 14.1 5.8 71 East Sussex/West Sussex/Brighton & Hove 15.9 10.9 7.0 72 Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 22.9 16.4 5.5 73 Kent/Medway 8.4 4.2 1.4 74 Hamps/Isle of Wight/Portsm'th/S'thampton 12.1 7.0 2.8 75 Berkshire 27.0 17.8 5.7 South West 15.0 7.8 4.2 80 Devon/Cornwall 17.1 9.3 4.1 81 Somerset 7.4 2.5 1.1 82 Gloucestershire 16.9 11.0 6.8 83 Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole 17.6 11.2 6.4 84 Wiltshire/Swindon 34.2 17.6 12.2 85 Former Avon 24.8 10.6 2.0 ENGLAND 14.5 7.5 3.7 8

Figure 1: Intra-regional variations in the percentage of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cheshire-Warrington N = 5 4 6 4 5 6 5 6 6 NW NE WM YH EM E L SE SW LSC region Figure 2: Intra-regional variations in the percentage of establishments reporting hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas 20 18 16 Birmingham and Solih W iltshire and Swindo 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Somerset LSC 0 N = 5 4 6 4 5 6 5 6 6 NW NE WM YH EM E L SE SW LSC region Key to Regions: NW: North West; NE: North East; WM: West Midlands; YH: Yorkshire & the Humber; EM: East Midlands; E: Eastern region; L: London; SE: South East; SW: South West. 9

Table 3: Rankings of LLSC areas on percentage of establishments reporting vacancies (weighted data) Total Vacancies Hard-to-fill Vacancies Skill-Shortage Vacancies Wiltshire/Swindon 34.2 Berkshire 17.8 Wiltshire/Swindon 12.2 Birmingham/Solihull 33.8 Wiltshire/Swindon 17.6 Hertfordshire 8.7 Surrey 29.9 Birmingham/Solihull 17.2 Cumbria 7.9 Berkshire 27.0 Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 16.4 London East 7.3 Former Avon 24.8 Surrey 14.1 East Sussex/West 7.0 Sussex/Brighton & Hove Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 22.9 Bournem th/dorset/poole 11.2 Gloucestershire 6.8 Bedfordshire 22.8 Gloucestershire 11.0 Bournem th/dorset/poole 6.4 Nottinghamshire 22.1 Hertfordshire 10.9 Birmingham/Solihull 6.3 Northamptonshire 21.0 East Sussex/West 10.9 Staffordshire 6.3 Sussex/Brighton & Hove Hertfordshire 19.8 Former Avon 10.6 London Central 6.1 London East 18.5 London East 10.5 Lancashire 5.8 Lancashire 18.3 London Central 9.9 Surrey 5.8 London Central 18.1 Herefordshire/Worcs 9.3 Berkshire 5.7 Bournem th/dorset/poole 17.6 Cumbria 9.3 Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 5.5 Essex 17.4 Devon/Cornwall 9.3 Bedfordshire 4.9 Devon/Cornwall 17.1 Cambridgeshire 9.2 Leicestershire 4.3 Gloucestershire 16.9 Lancashire 9.2 Devon/Cornwall 4.1 Staffordshire 16.1 County Durham 8.5 Tyne and Wear 3.9 East Sussex/West 15.9 Staffordshire 8.2 Mersyside/Halton 3.8 Sussex/Brighton & Hove County Durham 15.8 Bedfordshire 8.0 Nottinghamshire 3.8 South Yorkshire 15.5 England 7.5 England 3.7 Mersyside/Halton 15.5 The Black Country 7.3 County Durham 3.7 London North 14.7 Leicestershire 7.1 Greater Manchester 3.7 England 14.5 Hamps/IoW/Portsm'th/S'th 7.0 Cambridgeshire 3.5 ampton Leicestershire 14.5 London West 6.9 North Yorkshire 3.3 Cambridgeshire 13.9 Norfolk 6.9 Hamps/IoW/Portsm'th/S'th 2.8 ampton The Black Country 13.8 Tyne and Wear 6.7 Northamptonshire 2.6 Herefordshire/Worcs 12.8 Northamptonshire 6.5 Humberside 2.5 London West 12.8 Greater Manchester 6.2 The Black Country 2.4 Tyne and Wear 12.5 Shropshire 6.2 Norfolk 2.4 Herefordshire/Worcs 12.3 Suffolk 5.8 Coventry/Warwickshire 2.3 Hamps/IoW/Portsm'th/S'th 12.1 Mersyside/Halton 5.6 Herefordshire/Worcs 2.1 ampton Suffolk 11.6 Essex 5.6 Suffolk 2.1 Greater Manchester 11.6 Nottinghamshire 5.5 London West 2.0 Cumbria 11.4 Herefordshire/Worcs 5.5 Essex 2.0 West Yorkshire 11.1 Cheshire/Warrington 5.4 Former Avon 2.0 London South 10.4 London South 5.3 Shropshire 1.9 Northumberland 10.0 South Yorkshire 5.1 London South 1.8 Norfolk 9.9 North Yorkshire 5.0 South Yorkshire 1.7 Tees Valley 9.8 London North 4.8 Tees Valley 1.6 Shropshire 9.8 West Yorkshire 4.6 Northumberland 1.6 Cheshire/Warrington 9.6 Lincolnshire/Rutland 4.5 West Yorkshire 1.6 Lincolnshire/Rutland 8.9 Kent/Medway 4.2 Kent/Medway 1.4 North Yorkshire 8.8 Northumberland 4.1 London North 1.2 Kent/Medway 8.4 Tees Valley 4.1 Derbyshire 1.2 Somerset 7.4 Humberside 3.4 Somerset 1.1 Humberside 7.3 Derbyshire 3.1 Lincolnshire/Rutland 0.6 Derbyshire 6.8 Somerset 2.5 Cheshire/Warrington 0.4 10

Table 4 shows total vacancies, hard-to-fill vacancies and skill-shortage vacancies expressed as a percentage of employment by LLSC area and region. 14 (Vacancy rate 15 measures are also recorded in this Table.) Across England as a whole, total vacancies accounted for 3.74 per cent of employment, hard-to-fill vacancies accounted for 1.73 per cent of employment and skill-shortage vacancies accounted for 0.77 per cent of employment. At the regional scale, there is clearer evidence for a North-South divide in the incidence of vacancies on this density measure than on the establishmentbased measure. The four southern-most regions of England the Eastern region, the South East, London and the South West record a density of total, hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies in excess of the England average. In the West Midlands, East Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber, North West and North East, the value on each of the density measures is below the national average. The North East and Yorkshire & the Humber record the lowest densities of total, hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies. The East Midlands displays a similar density of skill-shortage vacancies to these two regions. At the intra-regional scale, local variations in the density of vacancies are apparent (as shown in Figures 5 and 6 for skill-shortage and hard-to-fill vacancies, respectively). For example: In the Eastern region, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire LLSC areas display the greatest densities of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies. Essex and Bedfordshire also display densities of all types of vacancies in excess of the England average. Suffolk displays the lowest density of vacancies of any LLSC area in the region, and Norfolk LLSC area also displays lower densities of total hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies than the England average. In the South East, Kent/Medway is exceptional in that it is the only LLSC area in the region to record a lower densities of total, hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies than the England average. In all other LLSC areas in the region the densities of all types of vacancies identified exceed the England average. In the South West a clear east-west split is identifiable, with the easternmost areas of Wiltshire/Swindon, Gloucestershire and Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole recording densities of total, hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies in excess of the regional and national averages. The Former Avon LLSC area records the lowest density of vacancies. In the West Midlands Herefordshire/Worcestershire, Birmingham/Solihull and Staffordshire display the highest densities of hard-to-fill vacancies and skillshortage vacancies, but only in Herefordshire/Worcestershire (in the case of hard-to-fill vacancies) and Staffordshire (skill-shortage vacancies) do the density values exceed the UK average. In Yorkshire & the Humber and the North East there are no LLSC areas displaying higher than average density values on any of the vacancy measures. In the East Midlands, the only density value in excess of the England average is that recorded by Nottinghamshire for total vacancies. 14 15 Such measures record the density of vacancies. The vacancy rate expresses the number of vacancies as a percentage of employment plus the number of vacancies. (Vacancy rates are used in the econometric analyses, but the emphasis here is on the density of vacancies, in order to maintain comparability of key indicators with the local analyses of ESS1999 data - see Green and Owen [2000] op. cit.. However, it should be borne in mind when comparing aggregate density measures from the two studies, that the fact that the ESS2001 data set includes very small establishments, which were excluded from ESS1999. 11

In the North West Cumbria displays a greater than national average density of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies, and Lancashire also displays a density of skill-shortage vacancies in excess of the England average. Table 5 ranks LLSC areas in descending order on the density of vacancies, while Figures 7 and 8 (see Appendix 4) show the density of skill-shortage vacancies and hard-to-fill vacancies, respectively. The maps (see Appendix 4) show that LLSC areas in southern England tend to display amongst the higher densities of hard-to-fill and skill-shortage vacancies. In general, the pattern of North-South regional differentiation is clearer on the density measures of vacancies than on the establishment-based measures. Total vacancies as a percentage of employment ranged from a high of 6.39 per cent in Hertfordshire and in excess of 5.9 per cent in Gloucestershire and London East LLSCs to a mere 1.62 per cent in Northumberland and less than 2 per cent in Tees Valley and Derbyshire. 12

Table 4: Vacancies as a percentage of employment by LLSC area and region (weighted data) Code Area Vacancy Density (Vacancy Rate) Total HtF S-S (Total) (HtF ) (S-S ) North West 2.86 1.28 0.63 (2.78) (1.24) (0.61) 1 Cumbria 3.03 2.16 1.56 (2.94) (2.10) (1.51) 2 Merseyside/Halton 3.14 0.81 0.34 (3.04) (0.79) (0.33) 3 Lancashire 2.54 1.35 0.90 (2.48) (1.32) (0.88) 4 Cheshire/Warrington 3.15 1.49 0.19 (3.05) (1.44) (0.18) 5 Greater Manchester 2.63 1.16 0.67 (2.56) (1.13) (0.65) North East 2.32 0.91 0.44 (2.27) (0.89) (0.43) 10 Tyne and Wear 2.88 1.07 0.61 (2.80) (1.04) (0.60) 11 County Durham 2.49 0.97 0.32 (2.43) (0.95) (0.31) 12 Tees Valley 1.79 0.77 0.37 (1.76) (0.76) (0.37) 13 Northumberland 1.62 0.65 0.25 (1.60) (0.64) (0.24) West Midlands 3.13 1.42 0.63 (3.04) (1.38) (0.61) 20 Birmingham/Solihull 4.44 1.67 0.67 (4.25) (1.60) (0.64) 21 Staffordshire 2.94 1.57 1.24 (2.86) (1.52) (1.21) 22 Shropshire 2.39 1.15 0.42 (2.33) (1.13) (0.41) 23 Herefordshire/Worcestershire 2.84 1.79 0.53 (2.76) (1.74) (0.51) 24 The Black Country 2.73 1.06 0.46 (2.66) (1.03) (0.45) 25 Coventry/Warwickshire 2.89 1.24 0.47 (2.81) (1.20) (0.45) Yorkshire and The Humber 2.36 0.94 0.36 (2.31) (0.92) (0.36) 30 North Yorkshire 2.00 0.90 0.43 (1.96) (0.88) (0.42) 31 South Yorkshire 2.47 0.86 0.19 (2.41) (0.84) (0.19) 32 West Yorkshire 2.65 1.10 0.38 (2.58) (1.07) (0.37) 33 Humberside 2.01 0.82 0.54 (1.98) (0.80) (0.53) East Midlands 2.94 1.02 0.42 (2.86) (0.99) (0.41) 40 Lincolnshire/Rutland 3.14 1.11 0.17 (3.04) (1.07) (0.16) 41 Northamptonshire 3.25 1.25 0.36 (3.15) (1.21) (0.34) 42 Leicestershire 2.75 0.99 0.52 (2.67) (0.97) (0.50) 43 Derbyshire 1.82 0.75 0.34 (1.78) (0.73) (0.33) 44 Nottinghamshire 4.04 1.14 0.71 (3.89) (1.10) (0.68) Eastern 4.46 2.18 1.11 (4.27) (2.08) (1.07) 50 Bedfordshire 3.78 1.43 0.68 (3.64) (1.38) (0.66) 51 Essex 5.54 2.04 0.82 (5.25) (1.93) (0.77) 52 Cambridgeshire 4.22 2.61 0.96 (4.05) (2.51) (0.92) 53 Hertfordshire 6.39 3.74 2.77 (6.00) (3.52) (2.60) 54 Norfolk 3.40 1.58 0.63 (3.29) (1.53) (0.61) 55 Suffolk 2.05 1.01 0.24 (2.01) (0.99) (0.24) London 4.98 2.13 0.96 (4.75) (2.03) (0.91) 60 London Central 5.55 3.20 1.41 (5.26) (3.03) (1.34) 61 London North 5.48 1.66 0.60 (5.20) (1.57) (0.57) 62 London East 6.23 1.70 1.12 (5.86) (1.60) (1.05) 63 London West 3.24 1.43 0.50 (3.14) (1.39) (0.49) 64 London South 3.26 1.62 0.49 (3.15) (1.57) (0.47) South East 4.56 2.47 0.96 (4.36) (2.36) (0.91) 70 Surrey 5.71 3.03 1.05 (5.41) (2.87) (0.99) 71 East Sussex/West Sussex/Brighton & Hove 4.04 1.95 1.12 (3.88) (1.87) (1.08) 72 Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 5.41 3.41 0.83 (5.13) (3.24) (0.79) 73 Kent/Medway 2.84 1.30 0.42 (2.76) (1.27) (0.41) 74 Hamps/Isle of Wight/Portsm'th/S'thampton 4.80 2.69 1.31 (4.58) (2.56) (1.25) 75 Berkshire 5.07 2.88 0.83 (4.83) (2.74) (0.79) South West 3.79 1.95 0.90 (3.65) (1.88) (0.87) 80 Devon/Cornwall 3.05 1.46 0.42 (2.96) (1.41) (0.41) 81 Somerset 3.09 1.26 0.38 (3.00) (1.22) (0.37) 82 Gloucestershire 5.92 3.46 2.30 (5.59) (3.27) (2.17) 83 Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole 3.77 2.49 1.35 (3.63) (2.40) (1.30) 84 Wiltshire/Swindon 5.15 2.75 1.50 (4.90) (2.62) (1.43) 85 Former Avon 2.78 1.11 0.21 (2.71) (1.08) (0.20) ENGLAND 3.74 1.73 0.77 (3.60) (1.67) (0.74) 13

Figure 5: Intra-regional variations in the density of skill-shortage vacancies LLSC areas 3.0 Hertfordshire LSC 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Staffordshire LSC.5 0.0 N = 5 4 6 4 5 6 5 6 6 NW NE WM YH EM E L SE SW LSC region Figure 6: Intra-regional variations in the density of hard-to-fill vacancies LLSC areas 4.0 3.5 3.0 Central London LSC 2.5 2.0 Cumbria 1.5 West London LSC Northamptonshire LSC 1.0.5 Derbyshire LSC 0.0 N = 5 4 6 4 5 6 5 6 6 NW NE WM YH EM E L SE SW LSC region 14

Table 5: Rankings of LLSC areas on vacancies as a percentage of employment (weighted data) Total Vacancies Hard-to-fill Vacancies Skill-Shortage Vacancies Hertfordshire 6.39 Hertfordshire 3.74 Hertfordshire 2.77 London East 6.23 Gloucestershire 3.46 Gloucestershire 2.30 Gloucestershire 5.92 Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 3.41 Cumbria 1.56 Surrey 5.71 London Central 3.20 Wiltshire and Swindon 1.50 London Central 5.55 Surrey 3.03 London Central 1.41 Essex 5.54 Berkshire 2.88 Bournem th Dorset/Poole 1.35 London North 5.48 Wiltshire and Swindon 2.75 Hamps/IoW/Portsm'th/ 1.31 Sou'thampton Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 5.41 Hamps/IoW/Portsm'th/ 2.69 Staffordshire 1.24 Sou'thampton Wiltshire and Swindon 5.15 Cambridgeshire 2.61 East Sussex/West 1.12 Sussex/Brighton & Hove Berkshire 5.07 Bournem th Dorset/Poole 2.49 London East 1.12 Hamps/IoW/Portsm'th/ 4.80 Cumbria 2.16 Surrey 1.05 ous'thampton Birmingham/Solihull 4.44 Essex 2.04 Cambridgeshire 0.96 Cambridgeshire 4.22 East Sussex/West 1.95 Lancashire 0.90 Sussex/Brighton & Hove Nottinghamshire 4.04 Herefordshire/Worcs 1.79 Berkshire 0.83 East Sussex/West 4.04 England 1.73 Oxon/Bucks/Milton Keynes 0.83 Sussex/Brighton & Hove Bedfordshire 3.78 London East 1.70 Essex 0.82 Bournem th Dorset/Poole 3.77 Birmingham/Solihull 1.67 England 0.77 England 3.74 London North 1.66 Nottinghamshire 0.71 Norfolk 3.40 London South 1.62 Bedfordshire 0.68 London South 3.26 Norfolk 1.58 Greater Manchester 0.67 Northamptonshire 3.25 Staffordshire 1.57 Birmingham/Solihull 0.67 London West 3.24 Cheshire/Warrington 1.49 Norfolk 0.63 Cheshire/Warrington 3.15 Devon/Cornwall 1.46 Tyne and Wear 0.61 Mersyside/Halton 3.14 Bedfordshire 1.43 London North 0.60 Lincolnshire/Rutland 3.14 London West 1.43 Humberside 0.54 Somerset 3.09 Lancashire 1.35 Herefordshire/Worcs 0.53 Devon/Cornwall 3.05 Kent/Medway 1.30 Leicestershire 0.52 Cumbria 3.03 Somerset 1.26 London West 0.50 Staffordshire 2.94 Northamptonshire 1.25 London South 0.49 Coventry/Warwickshire 2.89 Coventry/Warwickshire 1.24 Coventry/Warwickshire 0.47 Tyne and Wear 2.88 Greater Manchester 1.16 The Black Country 0.46 Herefordshire/Worcs 2.84 Shropshire 1.15 North Yorkshire 0.43 Kent/Medway 2.84 Nottinghamshire 1.14 Shropshire 0.42 Former Avon 2.78 Former Avon 1.11 Devon/Cornwall 0.42 Leicestershire 2.75 Lincolnshire/Rutland 1.11 Kent/Medway 0.42 The Black Country 2.73 West Yorkshire 1.10 Somerset 0.38 West Yorkshire 2.65 Tyne and Wear 1.07 West Yorkshire 0.38 Greater Manchester 2.63 The Black Country 1.06 Tees Valley 0.37 Lancashire 2.54 Suffolk 1.01 Northamptonshire 0.36 County Durham 2.49 Leicestershire 0.99 Mersyside/Halton 0.34 South Yorkshire 2.47 County Durham 0.97 Derbyshire 0.34 Shropshire 2.39 North Yorkshire 0.90 County Durham 0.32 Suffolk 2.05 South Yorkshire 0.86 Northumberland 0.25 Humberside 2.01 Humberside 0.82 Suffolk 0.24 North Yorkshire 2.00 Mersyside/Halton 0.81 Former Avon 0.21 Derbyshire 1.82 Tees Valley 0.77 South Yorkshire 0.19 Tees Valley 1.79 Derbyshire 0.75 Cheshire/Warrington 0.19 Northumberland 1.62 Northumberland 0.65 Lincolnshire/Rutland 0.17 15